On 20/07/08 13:49 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Hi,
>> you all are probably aware now that flashrom 1.0 is pending release and
> the philosophy for further development (total rewrite vs. incremental
> changes) is heavily disagreed upon.
> Completely forking the codebase into separate projects is something I'd
> like to avoid because we already have too few development resources.
>> Suggestion: After 1.0, we create
> - a development branch where people can go wild with rewriting stuff
> - a stable branch with incremental changes where breakage is not allowed.
>> Each branch would have its own maintainer, possibly with final authority
> over what goes in. I suggest Peter as maintainer for the radical
> development branch because he has expressed the need for a flashrom
> rewrite in the past. I personally believe more in the incremental
> approach with minimal changes.
The way you have presented it, I get a vision of two competing trees,
each one bickering with the other, and competing for new ports. One
tree has the advantage of being somewhat stable, while the other one
could be better, but lacks the resources to make itself better. Sound
familiar?
I like the idea of a stable tree, but a stable tree needs to be just
that, stable. No incremental features, no massive changes - just bug
fixes. Anything else is just a fork in sheeps clothing.
I believe in solid competition. I think that Peter should openly fork
flashrom, call it something new and develop what he thinks is best. When
ready, he can bring it to the community, and we can compare. The
community will gravitate toward the best solution. Peter can attract
those who agree with them, and work on a solution. I volunteer to join
him.
Jordan
--
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.